>Having seen all the code busting stuff on this list am I the
>only person on the list who would rather that code busting
>techniques were :
>
>a) kept quiet, I don't need my code busted thanks.

Not a hope. With the current state of the internet if anyone discovers
something which they regard as useful (but not profitable) they are free to
publish it.

>b) rebutted by Microchip. <minor snip..> WHY don't Microchip respond
>   to these threats to
>   their customers intellectual property ? Do other manufacturers
>   have such duff protection ?

I guess they didn't anticipate a really determined attempt to defeat their
protection, or they assumed that if someone throws enough time and money at
the problem it will be cracked one way or another. Hopefully they are
developing improved schemes for future releases.

> My current thoughts are that if
>   it is so easy to bust PIC code then anyone who cares about
>   their code ought to go elsewhere.

I think that the PICs have been subject to a particularly intensive attack
on their code protection schemes because they have been used in smart-cards
for satellite TV systems.  Duplicating these means big money and possible
access to 'banned' adult channels.  I would imagine that if the code
protection systems on other microcontrollers were subjected to the same
level of scrutiny they would soon be disabled by one means or another.
Perhaps in some way they have been a victim of their own success.

Just my thoughts.

Keith.
==========================================================
Keith Dowsett         "Variables won't; constants aren't."

E-mail:      kdowsett@rpms.ac.uk
Phone:       0181-740-3162
Fax:         0181-743-3987

Snail mail:  MRC Clinical Sciences Centre, Cyclotron Unit.
                 Hammersmith Hospital. London W12 0NN.